APHC010278842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14044/2025 Between: Kasi Meera Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R MAHESWARA RAO PALETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. Leanred counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) and he is husband of the 5th respondent at whose behest the respondent-police is calling the petitioner to the police station and demanding him to pay heavy amounts to the 5th respondent towards settlement of matrimonial dispute pending between them. 3. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the Station House Officer, Uppalaguptam Police Station, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, wherein it is stated that the 5th respondent has submitted a representation in PGRS on 16.05.2025 and therefore, the police were constrained to call the petitioner to the police station and ascertained that a crime was registered at the behest of the 5th respondent and investigated into and a charge sheet was also filed and that the respondent- police have not interfered in any matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and only for the purpose of conducting preliminary enquiry based on the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner, and at whose behest, the petitioner was called to the police station. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that with a view to pacify the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and to give a logical conclusion to the representation submitted by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent, the petitioner was called to the police station. 5. At any rate, the petitioner and the 5th respondent have to workout their remedies in a competent court of law and in that regard, the police have no role to play in summoning the petitioner to the police station. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ DR.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.05.2025 Ksn